Please don't delete the content of your post and leave it with just "Deleted." or "Delete me." etc. If you double post or make a redundant post, please annote the post as such but do not obliterate the original post. Same goes for posts you delete yourselves... Leave the content intact.

We have already had to impose limits on post editing to curtail such vandalisim... yet the issue persists.

If I make a post that I later decide isn't appropriate to the thread or otherwise decide to delete, why is that a problem for you? Unfortunately, there isn't an option for members to actually delete their own posts. I do this every now and again, but it is almost always immediately after I made the original post and realized my mistake.

I can understand why it would be sort of bad for thread continuity to delete something made some time ago though.

If I make a post that I later decide isn't appropriate to the thread or otherwise decide to delete, why is that a problem for you? Unfortunately, there isn't an option for members to actually delete their own posts. I do this every now and again, but it is almost always immediately after I made the original post and realized my mistake.

Because you've decided to self moderate after you've clicked submit and left us with "Deleted" and removed all trace of what you actually posted... inappropriate or otherwise.

I'm asking that members own up to what they post... and just put a quick note after the original text to request deletion.... instead of removing the edit option entirely, or keeping edit logs.

Self moderate before you click submit.... Once you post it, you own it.

If I make a post that I later decide isn't appropriate to the thread or otherwise decide to delete, why is that a problem for you? Unfortunately, there isn't an option for members to actually delete their own posts. I do this every now and again, but it is almost always immediately after I made the original post and realized my mistake.

Because you've decided to self moderate after you've clicked submit and left us with "Deleted" and removed all trace of what you actually posted... inappropriate or otherwise.

I'm asking that members own up to what they post... and just put a quick note after the original text to request deletion.... instead of removing the edit option entirely, or keeping edit logs.

Self moderate before you click submit.... Once you post it, you own it.

I beg to differ as well, you're right though if you're going to post inappropriate content and you know it isn't allowed or appreciated then you know better to even be posting it to begin with.

I don't see anything wrong with self editing (moderation you call it) as long as you catch the error right away, or want to add/update/change the post to reflect an actual ongoing event or whatever (as I have seen this for encampments).

Again, I don't see what the problem is editing/putting "delete me" posts on double/redundant posts you're still going to have to delete it anyhow whether there is something there or not.

As far as someone owning up to it, they ARE owning up to it by removing content that shouldn't be there NOW not later. This would be different if your inappropriate comment/thread received 10-20 replies then no I would not expect to be allowed to edit/delete my post then I'd be owning up to it another way or else.

A copy of the post from each time it was edited is retained, allowing us to revert a post to a previous version as needed. So... once you hit submit there is a record of that post, and each edit afterward.

We have already had to impose limits on post editing to curtail such vandalisim... yet the issue persists.

Sir, is it possible to enable editing in only specific boards, such as the Marketplace? In my opinion, it seems counterproductive to make multiple additional posts to indicate if an item is no longer for sale, when the post could simply be edited to place a strikethrough.

We have already had to impose limits on post editing to curtail such vandalisim... yet the issue persists.

Sir, is it possible to enable editing in only specific boards, such as the Marketplace? In my opinion, it seems counterproductive to make multiple additional posts to indicate if an item is no longer for sale, when the post could simply be edited to place a strikethrough.

But by making a new post with a price drop or change in sale status (sold, or no longer available, for example), it brings the thread to the top of the new posts list, so people realize there's been a change of information. It also effects a notification to those who were "watching" the thread, letting them know that new information has been added.

If you simply edit a post, those actions do not happen and people may not realize the price or sales status of the item has changed. The current system works quite nicely, I think.

But by making a new post with a price drop or change in sale status (sold, or no longer available, for example), it brings the thread to the top of the new posts list, so people realize there's been a change of information. It also effects a notification to those who were "watching" the thread, letting them know that new information has been added.

Not to be argumentative, but edited posts pop back up as "not read" for me. A good example is Smithsonia's posts, when he makes edits to his original prose. Does it not work that way for everyone?

I completely understand the "don't remove all text from your post to cover your tracks" desire, but isn't the "EDIT" feature there for a reason?

Logged

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

Im for it. There have been a couple of times where someone says something completely out of line, they get checked, and you go back later and the person deleted their post because they got put in their place. But, I dont agree with anonymous posts either. For me its about being a big kid and thinking before you hit POST.

But by making a new post with a price drop or change in sale status (sold, or no longer available, for example), it brings the thread to the top of the new posts list, so people realize there's been a change of information. It also effects a notification to those who were "watching" the thread, letting them know that new information has been added.

Not to be argumentative, but edited posts pop back up as "not read" for me. A good example is Smithsonia's posts, when he makes edits to his original prose. Does it not work that way for everyone?

That's not how it (appears) to work for me...

Logged

If it doesn't make you money or doesn't make you happy, stop doing it.

Please don't delete the content of your post and leave it with just "Deleted." or "Delete me." etc. If you double post or make a redundant post, please annote the post as such but do not obliterate the original post. Same goes for posts you delete yourselves... Leave the content intact.

We have already had to impose limits on post editing to curtail such vandalisim... yet the issue persists.

Your openness with your edits and deletion requests is appreciated.

I know Im the new guy here and just getting involved in CAP, but there is something concerning deleting posts that I havent seen anyone mention. If I post something, its is mine. That is it is my intellectual property. Intellectual property law that has evolved since the thousands of boards have cropped up show precedent that the post BELONGs to the poster and not the forum. Now I havent removed chunks or my few posts, but if I decide to do it because I believe I have made an error, or think the post is out of line or may even get me in trouble, under IP law, I ever every right to remove it or request that ti be removed and have it done. Technically under IP law as it realtes to these forums, if someone with hundreds of posts wanted them all deleted, then that is thieir right since they own what they wrote and the moderators cannot refuse to remove what does not belong to them.

Please don't delete the content of your post and leave it with just "Deleted." or "Delete me." etc. If you double post or make a redundant post, please annote the post as such but do not obliterate the original post. Same goes for posts you delete yourselves... Leave the content intact.

We have already had to impose limits on post editing to curtail such vandalisim... yet the issue persists.

Your openness with your edits and deletion requests is appreciated.

I know Im the new guy here and just getting involved in CAP, but there is something concerning deleting posts that I havent seen anyone mention. If I post something, its is mine. That is it is my intellectual property. Intellectual property law that has evolved since the thousands of boards have cropped up show precedent that the post BELONGs to the poster and not the forum. Now I havent removed chunks or my few posts, but if I decide to do it because I believe I have made an error, or think the post is out of line or may even get me in trouble, under IP law, I ever every right to remove it or request that ti be removed and have it done. Technically under IP law as it realtes to these forums, if someone with hundreds of posts wanted them all deleted, then that is thieir right since they own what they wrote and the moderators cannot refuse to remove what does not belong to them.

Just something to think about.

You know, if you don't like the rules, you don't have to be here. But if you do choose to be here then you have to follow the rules.

I know Im the new guy here and just getting involved in CAP, but there is something concerning deleting posts that I havent seen anyone mention. If I post something, its is mine. That is it is my intellectual property. Intellectual property law that has evolved since the thousands of boards have cropped up show precedent that the post BELONGs to the poster and not the forum.

Nope.

Logged

If it doesn't make you money or doesn't make you happy, stop doing it.

If you submit a letter to the editor to a web site or newspaper, especially knowing that your letter has the potential to be published and distributed, you don't get the right to later tell the newspaper that they have to take your letter down from their web site or remove it from their archives. Doesn't work like that.

Absolutely not. We do not want to own (and potentially be liable for) the posts that all of you make.

I think we've had enough of the armchair lawyering for the day. While I'm sure we all appreciate the legal advice, if we (the site) feel the need to review of our site agreement or policies, we'll ask our lawyer (he'd be the one with a JD and bar membership).

I know Im the new guy here and just getting involved in CAP, but there is something concerning deleting posts that I havent seen anyone mention. If I post something, its is mine. That is it is my intellectual property. Intellectual property law that has evolved since the thousands of boards have cropped up show precedent that the post BELONGs to the poster and not the forum.

Nope.

If it's not mine, then whose is it. Mods have already said they don't want to own what I post (or anyone else for that matter). So if it isn't mine, and it certainly isn't the forums, to whom does it belong. If you did some internet research on the matter you would find that the bulk of precedent concerning intellectual property demonstrates that information of original authorship posted on an internet forum belongs solely to the person who wrote it, not to the forum owners, mods or operator. I see someone has offered to consult with CAP legal counsel which I think is a wise idea, as it would clear this up. I'm not trying to be a fly in the ointment, I'm simply saying that he who wrote it owns it and has the write to remove it. I see someone has offered to consult CAP legal counsel which I think would clear this up.

They want the best of both worlds and yet, won't take ownership. I've been at this game a long time, back in the old BBS days, long before there was an internet.

I can delete anything of mine I wish to delete. You need to put it in your TOS, but legally there is nothing you can do.

That being said... the 'no delete' request is more for continuity and manners.

The only way for CAPTalk to prevent it is to change the board settings to lock editing after "X" amount of time. Like 5 minutes or after the next person posts.

BTW: When you submit to a newspaper they specifically say they can do what they want. They also say they take ownership. CAPTalk is not claiming that.

I am doubtful CAP legal eagles will touch this with a 10 foot pole. CAPTalk is NOT an official CAP venue. CAPTalk does NOT represent CAP in any way shape or form. They won't waste their time answering, other than to say Sorry Charlie SOL.

If I choose to nuke my posts here I can. If you put them back you are in violation of my property rights as you specifically state no claim to it.

I understand your request is really a gentlemans agreement. Just remember if you do restore posts that were deleted by the original owner you are opening up a big can of worms.

You can't have it both ways...

Again specify that it is a gentlemans agreement... now if you want to get down and dirty on the subject, just take a look at how a large entity handles it.

Here's an example from the TOS of a Gannett News site

Our Right to Use Materials You Submit or Post. When you submit or post any material via the Site, you grant us, and anyone authorized by us, a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to use, copy, modify, transmit, sell, exploit, create derivative works from, distribute, and/or publicly perform or display such material, in whole or in part, in any manner or medium (whether now known or hereafter developed), for any purpose that we choose. The foregoing grant includes the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such posting or submission, including, but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws that exist in any relevant jurisdiction. Also, in connection with the exercise of these rights, you grant us, and anyone authorized by us, the right to identify you as the author of any of your postings or submissions by name, email address or screen name, as we deem appropriate. You understand that the technical processing and transmission of the Site, including content submitted by you, may involve transmissions over various networks, and may involve changes to the content to conform and adapt it to technical requirements of connecting networks or devices. You will not receive any compensation of any kind for the use of any materials submitted by you.

IP posted by the author freely in public portions of the internet simply becomes part of the public domain, owned by no one and may be used freely by anyone.

IOW, there is no law that says you cannot nuke your own posts, but the board owners (or anyone else) can simply restore them, if they choose. There is no legal recourse for use of IP voluntarily placed in the public domain.

(Of course, board owners can freely delete your posts, or ban anyone they choose for any reason, including violations of board rules. They can even do the those things for no reason at all.)

My friend who is a practicing attorney had a little to say after scanning the site and this thread. I edited it a little...

... Because I think you nailed it when you said they speak with forked tongue, and want it both ways.

This stuff really is a gentleman's agreement. These guys seem a little like [deleted]cks, "how dare you question me you armchair lawyers". Moderator burnout is common, after a few years of fun it becomes a grind. Someone needs a break...

...BTW, I just skimmed the code of conduct. It would appear there is nothing in there prohibiting deletion.

My friend who is a practicing attorney had a little to say after scanning the site and this thread. I edited it a little...

That's nice. I don't care what your friend, or any of the other armchair lawyers, have to say about the issue.

If anybody doesn't like the site rules, or one is worried about how we treat what one views to be his or her intellectual property, one is very welcome not to post anything else here. Nobody is compelling anybody to participate here. But when one does participate here, understand that one will do so by the pretty simple and straightforward set of rules we've set out.

In the heat of the moment you post something that could be construed as libelous (for example). I push the post button, look at it and say "Holy Crap! That's not what I meant!" You go back and change the post to make it more reasonable. Then a moderator comes back and says "AHA! Gunner's changing his posts again!"

OK, who has the problem? The person who initially posts, realizes that he said something in the heat of the moment and changes it immediately or the moderator who takes the original post and republishes it?

I realize this is an extreme example and I don't think that anyone here would get to that level. But it does beg the question. My wife is a writer and talks about copyright law a great deal. Frankly, I can't follow all the ins and outs.

I'm certainly not trying to "stir the pot" here and I'll certainly follow the rules of the owners.

There is a difference between a reasonable "that's not what I meant to say" edit and malicious edit or outright post nuke to CYA. Think before you post, don't get stuck on stupid... and there will be no issue.

If I post something, its is mine. That is it is my intellectual property.

Nope.

Quote from: Ned

You don't "own it."

Normally I remain mum on contentious issues, I really feel a need to speak up here with a few US Code cites.

Quote from: USC 17 §210 a

(a) Initial Ownership.— Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

Read: If you originally created it, you own the intellectual property rights on it.

Quote from: USC 17 §210 c

(c) Contributions to Collective Works.— Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.

Read: If you consider these forums a collective work, then each post (contribution) still remains the property of the individual author, unless that copyright is transferred pursuant USC 17 § 204 ("These posts belong to the forum owner" doesn't cut it). Also note that the example TOS cite given above only gives a license to the website, not the copyright ownership itself. There is a distinct difference.

§ 404 states that the collective copyright at the bottom of the page invokes copyright protection for all individual contributions to the collection, which remain the property of the original author.

§ 408 also goes on to note that copyright registration is not necessary, for those who are going to say that we don't register each of our posts...

This isn't really the overall point of the thread, however, this particular point was bothering me a bit. Nothing personal Eclipse/Ned, just felt a strong urge to make a rebuttal.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 08:55:50 PM by Spaceman3750 »

Logged

The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.

This isn't really the overall point of the thread, however, this particular point was bothering me a bit. Nothing personal Eclipse/Ned, just felt a strong urge to make a rebuttal.

Since nothing you cited is applicable to a public internet forum, especially where identities are not verified and anonymous posting is allowed.

This is not "collective work", nor a "work" of any kind. It is a discussion, and public conversations cannot be copywrittenrighted (!@#$% SARDRAGON). Anything you post here or in other public forums, falls immediately into the public domain and you lose any control over how it can be used.

Whether CT could be enjoined in a libel situation is a separate discussion, otherwise when you choose to play in this sandbox you accept that anything you post here is cast to the winds, including them deleting, changing, or reposting something you would prefer wasn't seen publicly.

I'll let Ned eat the rest of your lunch...

« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 09:53:03 PM by Eclipse »

Logged

If it doesn't make you money or doesn't make you happy, stop doing it.

You do realize that you are arguing with someone in the legal profession, who spends lots of time in the courtroom?

Nope, wasn't aware of that. Not arguing either. Making a case. There's a difference.

Logged

The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.

You do realize that you are arguing with someone in the legal profession, who spends lots of time in the courtroom?

Nope, wasn't aware of that. Not arguing either. Making a case. There's a difference.

Ned can correct me, but as far as I've been able to find with a little Google research, copyright doesn't happen within the public domain. This is intellectual property published in the public domain of the internet, and therefore, if I'm reading this correctly, copyright law does not apply to these works in the way you're trying to apply it.

I'm not the guy who works in law or has any real interest experience in reading it, but I think you need to work that part of your argument out before trying to quote law.

Hah! This thread is awesome. I mean some people have issues with posts, others don't seem to care. When it comes down to it, if someone really wanted their posts deleted after disassociating with CT, well yea it would be amicable to just allow for it. Remember folks, there's a surplus of lawyers. If you ever really do need one, just hire one! If a simple cease and desist letter doesn't work, then go for an injunction. Once you start talking real damages, well, that's usually when people act. Unless you settle, it really doesn't matter how many lawyers are in the room nor how long they've been holding a bar card, because only one side usually wins. Again, if you ever find yourself in a bind, make an appointment with your nearest lawyer. End of story.

I don't see anywhere on here referring to folks who want to "disassociate with CT", rather seems to be about active posters who try to hide dirty laundry, or even just confuse an entire thread (even accidentally). [And yes, I did go through the thread and reread all previous posts]

Heck, Eclipse did something similar just this past week and didn't seem too upset when MIKE put it back (caused confusion in the thread, replaced for continuity).

Of course, if I were a betting man, I'd put money that the mods would, if a poster actually got a lawyer involved, give them a complete package- delete all posts, delete profile, IP ban, and a nice email saying "Nice havin' ya, bye "

Remember, I am not a moderator and cannot speak for them or their actions, and cannot say what they would actually do. But seriously, anyone who got a lawyer involved for a forum such as this.... Yeah.(BTW- way to stir the pot!)P.S. II- I love that Nathan's signature is directly above the post above this one.

I don't see anywhere on here referring to folks who want to "disassociate with CT", rather seems to be about active posters who try to hide dirty laundry, or even just confuse an entire thread (even accidentally). [And yes, I did go through the thread and reread all previous posts]

Heck, Eclipse did something similar just this past week and didn't seem too upset when MIKE put it back (caused confusion in the thread, replaced for continuity).

Of course, if I were a betting man, I'd put money that the mods would, if a poster actually got a lawyer involved, give them a complete package- delete all posts, delete profile, IP ban, and a nice email saying "Nice havin' ya, bye "

Remember, I am not a moderator and cannot speak for them or their actions, and cannot say what they would actually do. But seriously, anyone who got a lawyer involved for a forum such as this.... Yeah.(BTW- way to stir the pot!)P.S. II- I love that Nathan's signature is directly above the post above this one.

Stir the pot? Nah. Just making a point. No one explicitly said "disassociate" but if people are wishing to delete their accounts it seems implied they are wishing to delete their posts as well. I could not imagine what they had said to warrant such a request, but from what I can tell it feels as though they might be met with a difficult time according to previous posts. If that ends up being the case, instead of everyone playing "armchair lawyer" or speaking to friends, they then ought to see the nearest real one. That's all I was saying, no pot stirring....